Mixoff Contest with Mike Senior - Win Mike's New Book!

[triviul]

One only thing, I did not use any stereo spreader, I don't like them.

I've realised what it is. I think you might have hard-panned the multi-mics for that guitar, and they're slightly out of phase. I've just noticed that livingsounds (who I'm just critiquing) has done the same thing.

[lettenmusic]

The next mix that's come up on my system is from lettenmusic, but it looks like his post to this thread has since disappeared. Are you still out there, lettenmusic? If so would you still like me to critique the mix?

(I won't bite, honest! )

alright... smashed this pretty good, only because I was in a hurry.

http://www.polydreammusic.com/Young%20Griffo_16.441.01.mp3

[Guitar Zero]

Here's my revised mix for judging, after taking Michael's well thought out advice.  It's not mastered, just mixed, the way I would turn it over to an ME for mastering.  First one is the wav file, second one is the mp3 version.

http://www.box.net/shared/hv5rft62v3

http://www.box.net/shared/e25f388urx

Really interesting listening to the different versions of this mix.  Shows how many directions a song can take in creative hands.  Very fun.  Thanks again to those putting on this contest.  

[triviul]

www.scherer.de/download/BloodToBoneLS_1_5.mp3

It's official: we've now had everything but the kitchen sink in this competition! The 'rain atmosphere' sample that this mix starts with is the first bit of proper Foley we've had so far, I think. I'd not be surprised if you'd been reading Mix Rescue, actually, because I use Foley stuff quite often for those mixes -- although rarely as prominently as you've done here. Still, I'd suggest rethinking this particular usage for two reasons. Firstly, it's very difficult to fade out of the rainstorm sample without feeling the loss of its natural acoustic signature. (This is why I rarely push ambient effects like this so upfront, and tend instead to use them in a subtler background role, so that they function almost like a sort of reverb.) And, secondly, I think that the fact that this particular sound effect has already been used to death in so many record/film/television productions means that it carries too much emotional baggage from cheesy 'C'-grade ballads and dreadful TV-movie weepies. As such, I'd be worried that you'd fall at the first hurdle when it came to winning Young Griffo over to your vision for the song.

Overall tonality is in the right kind of ball-park, but I'd probably take out a couple of decibels at 350Hz and 3.5kHz, as well as boosting a similar amount around the 1kHz region. Mono-compatibility, on the other hand, is a big issue with the guitar in this mix, and I think it's because (as I mentioned in my last post to Paulo) you've panned the guitar multimics to opposite sides of the spectrum without sorting out their phase alignment. In mono both the main and secondary guitar phase-cancel fairly severely, and although the former comes out of it slightly better than the latter, it still takes a real dive in the mono balance compared with the stereo. The overheads don't fare much better either, so the cymbals suffer a lot of 'air' loss, and the backing vocals also appear to have been widened in a way which leaves them considerably dulled -- flip the mono switch in the outro in particular to hear all this in practice.

Once you factor out those particular issues, however, and look at the stereo presentation on its own terms, it's actually got a lot to recommend it. There's a good combination of clarity and balance, in particular, something which isn't easy to achieve, and I like the way the kick and bass-guitar interact. The lead vocals in general could probably have a bit more body to them in the 800Hz region, while the 12kHz region feels too crispy for me. My guess is that you're pushing this frequency with your EQ to try to give the vocals better clarity, but the reason they're not coming through is that the guitars and cymbals are strongly masking them an octave or two below this. It's only by dialling in some EQ cuts on those conflicting tracks that you'll be able to carve a space for the vocal to really pop through. (That said, a general increase in the vocal level of a decibel or so would also be within reason.) On a related note, the cymbals also seem to be strong in the 12kHz region, and are combining with the vocal sibilance in a slightly unattractive way, so either you should reassess that EQ decision, or look into putting a high-frequency dynamic EQ on the overheads tracks, triggered from the vocal sibilance. (Admittedly, the latter is usually a bit unwieldy to implement in most DAW systems. )

I like the snare sound you've got, which has enough brightness, but also a nice weight to it, as well as a certain amount of sustain. The additional snare accents and reverb spins are also an interesting idea, although perhaps fractionally out-of-time on occasion. The toms feel rather low in the balance against the snare, which makes the fills feel a bit odd -- during the lead-in to the first chorus, for instance.

As I've already hinted, I like the way you use mix delay/reverb effects, which is both tasteful and responsive to the needs of the music. My only comment on that front really is that you could probably use more in the way of stereo quarter-note tempo delay to fill out the larger-scale textures a bit more.

So overall, I was actually surprised how much I liked this mix, given the eyebrow-raising opening gambit. Bar the mono-compatibility issues, most of my criticisms are pretty niggly, to be honest. Thanks for submitting the mix!

[triviul]

http://soundcloud.com/stu-brown/btb-new-mix

Hah! Not sure how much you've changed about the mix itself, but the difference between this version and the first one you posted is like night and day! And (as I had hoped to be able to say ) you really don't need to be hammering multi-band buss processing to get your balance to work. On this evidence I'd say your instincts are already going very much in the right direction. There's also a lot of excitement in this mix, something that wasn't at all apparent before, so well done on that count. The way you've got the tracks to blend with each other is another highlight, and is indicative of a sensible approach to send effects throughout.

Some balance issues could be tweaked here and there. The toms are low in the balance and rather anaemic-sounding. The bass is very strong at 500Hz, and while this makes for excellent small-speaker projection and rhythmic/melodic drive from the part, it does leave the mix as a whole lacking in warmth in the 80-100Hz region. In a similar vein, the kick is balancing very nicely on the small speakers, but I'd like at least 3-4dB more power from it below 80Hz for more full-range systems. The vocals during the choruses could take a step forward too, to improve their clarity, but you may also need to perforate the guitar fuzz a little with EQ to help out further.

All that said, however, this is a mix that already works pretty well on Auratones, so balance can't really be considered a big weakness. Overall tonality could perhaps have a little less 500Hz and 4kHz, as well as maybe a bit of 900Hz boost, but it's also not bad as it stands, notwithstanding the aforementioned low-end issues. Switching to mono doesn't hold many surprises either, although the usually phase-cancellation does dull the tone a fair bit -- it's only the mid-section guitars and chorus backing vocals that really experience significant level reductions in mono, and the music survives those issues pretty well.

Thanks for posting this revised version, because the energy you've brought to this production sets a good benchmark for others on this thread, and the guitar/bass processing in particular makes a very interesting listen. Plus I'm glad that I can actually provide some more positive comments now that I can hear into the mix better!

[Audio Monkey]

I just want to take the time to say thanx to John and Mike. You guys rock! John, I've been looking for a decent mixing website for a while and I'm glad to have stumbled upon this one. Even though this site is still pretty new its brought a lot of Mixheads together to do the thing we love to do! MIX! Mike....I'm surprised your still sane after listening to the same song over....and over...and over again, and then taking the time to write paragraph after paragraph about everyones' highs and lows. I'm glad your part of this cause its not everyday we can have a professional give us the insite to helping out the amateur to get better without having to go to school and spend hundreds of dollars in a time where money's tight, gas is at it's all time high and the world is suppose to end next year. Music is one of the things that helps get me thru the day and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.....So hats off to both of you!

-Monkey

[living sounds]

It's official: we've now had everything but the kitchen sink in this competition! The 'rain atmosphere' sample that this mix starts with is the first bit of proper Foley we've had so far, I think. I'd not be surprised if you'd been reading Mix Rescue, actually, because I use Foley stuff quite often for those mixes -- although rarely as prominently as you've done here. Still, I'd suggest rethinking this particular usage for two reasons. Firstly, it's very difficult to fade out of the rainstorm sample without feeling the loss of its natural acoustic signature. (This is why I rarely push ambient effects like this so upfront, and tend instead to use them in a subtler background role, so that they function almost like a sort of reverb.) And, secondly, I think that the fact that this particular sound effect has already been used to death in so many record/film/television productions means that it carries too much emotional baggage from cheesy 'C'-grade ballads and dreadful TV-movie weepies. As such, I'd be worried that you'd fall at the first hurdle when it came to winning Young Griffo over to your vision for the song.

Overall tonality is in the right kind of ball-park, but I'd probably take out a couple of decibels at 350Hz and 3.5kHz, as well as boosting a similar amount around the 1kHz region. Mono-compatibility, on the other hand, is a big issue with the guitar in this mix, and I think it's because (as I mentioned in my last post to Paulo) you've panned the guitar multimics to opposite sides of the spectrum without sorting out their phase alignment. In mono both the main and secondary guitar phase-cancel fairly severely, and although the former comes out of it slightly better than the latter, it still takes a real dive in the mono balance compared with the stereo. The overheads don't fare much better either, so the cymbals suffer a lot of 'air' loss, and the backing vocals also appear to have been widened in a way which leaves them considerably dulled -- flip the mono switch in the outro in particular to hear all this in practice.

Once you factor out those particular issues, however, and look at the stereo presentation on its own terms, it's actually got a lot to recommend it. There's a good combination of clarity and balance, in particular, something which isn't easy to achieve, and I like the way the kick and bass-guitar interact. The lead vocals in general could probably have a bit more body to them in the 800Hz region, while the 12kHz region feels too crispy for me. My guess is that you're pushing this frequency with your EQ to try to give the vocals better clarity, but the reason they're not coming through is that the guitars and cymbals are strongly masking them an octave or two below this. It's only by dialling in some EQ cuts on those conflicting tracks that you'll be able to carve a space for the vocal to really pop through. (That said, a general increase in the vocal level of a decibel or so would also be within reason.) On a related note, the cymbals also seem to be strong in the 12kHz region, and are combining with the vocal sibilance in a slightly unattractive way, so either you should reassess that EQ decision, or look into putting a high-frequency dynamic EQ on the overheads tracks, triggered from the vocal sibilance. (Admittedly, the latter is usually a bit unwieldy to implement in most DAW systems. )

I like the snare sound you've got, which has enough brightness, but also a nice weight to it, as well as a certain amount of sustain. The additional snare accents and reverb spins are also an interesting idea, although perhaps fractionally out-of-time on occasion. The toms feel rather low in the balance against the snare, which makes the fills feel a bit odd -- during the lead-in to the first chorus, for instance.

As I've already hinted, I like the way you use mix delay/reverb effects, which is both tasteful and responsive to the needs of the music. My only comment on that front really is that you could probably use more in the way of stereo quarter-note tempo delay to fill out the larger-scale textures a bit more.

So overall, I was actually surprised how much I liked this mix, given the eyebrow-raising opening gambit. Bar the mono-compatibility issues, most of my criticisms are pretty niggly, to be honest. Thanks for submitting the mix!

Thanks alot, Mike! I used the rain foley because I felt there needed to be something else going on in the beginning beside the bass, and coming up with what I originally envisioned (sort of a rainstorm sound getting filtered out) was too time consuming to do.

I spotted the mono-compatibility issue in the other mix, but not in my own... ;-) I've used a couple chorus plugins to make it more stereo, but this obviously didn't work. I don't understand the rationale behind recording the same guitar with different mics but no actual double tracks, maybe the Griffos can chime in here?

Thanks for the rest of the critique, too Mike, it's been really helpfull!

BTW, there's not a single delay in my mix, just reverb, clearly a mistake, I know.

[manuke]

http://soundcloud.com/stu-brown/btb-new-mix

Hah! Not sure how much you've changed about the mix itself, but the difference between this version and the first one you posted is like night and day! And (as I had hoped to be able to say ) you really don't need to be hammering multi-band buss processing to get your balance to work. On this evidence I'd say your instincts are already going very much in the right direction. There's also a lot of excitement in this mix, something that wasn't at all apparent before, so well done on that count. The way you've got the tracks to blend with each other is another highlight, and is indicative of a sensible approach to send effects throughout.

Some balance issues could be tweaked here and there. The toms are low in the balance and rather anaemic-sounding. The bass is very strong at 500Hz, and while this makes for excellent small-speaker projection and rhythmic/melodic drive from the part, it does leave the mix as a whole lacking in warmth in the 80-100Hz region. In a similar vein, the kick is balancing very nicely on the small speakers, but I'd like at least 3-4dB more power from it below 80Hz for more full-range systems. The vocals during the choruses could take a step forward too, to improve their clarity, but you may also need to perforate the guitar fuzz a little with EQ to help out further.

All that said, however, this is a mix that already works pretty well on Auratones, so balance can't really be considered a big weakness. Overall tonality could perhaps have a little less 500Hz and 4kHz, as well as maybe a bit of 900Hz boost, but it's also not bad as it stands, notwithstanding the aforementioned low-end issues. Switching to mono doesn't hold many surprises either, although the usually phase-cancellation does dull the tone a fair bit -- it's only the mid-section guitars and chorus backing vocals that really experience significant level reductions in mono, and the music survives those issues pretty well.

Thanks for posting this revised version, because the energy you've brought to this production sets a good benchmark for others on this thread, and the guitar/bass processing in particular makes a very interesting listen. Plus I'm glad that I can actually provide some more positive comments now that I can hear into the mix better!

That's great Mike, thanks so much for doing this so quickly. Really glad you think there's some excitement in it, was aiming for a simple sound that erm.... rocks. I guess the bottom end issues you mention this time are the result of me being overly cautious but I hope you'll understand my new found paranoia about those frequencies! Also interesting you mentioned 4khz, had already carved that out a bit but can obviously go further, which is good, always worried about harshness/dullness balance, still a tricky one for me. Good call on the chorus vocals too, hadn't noticed that before. Also, please don't think I was offended or anything by your first critique, it is a painful read but only because it's so embarrasing and it was all true. And I did find it very constructive, afterwards spent some time studying Adam Kasper's mixes for QOTSA with a spectrum analyser and used one of them as a guide. So went back a few previous versions for this mix and dumped my two day old Voxengo plugs that I didn't know how to use [not blaming my tools mind you] and started again, and glad I did because I learnt a lot. And all of your mentions of the Auratone inspired me to dig out an old crappy speaker and do most of the mix on that in mono so was hoping that it played ok on your system. May not have the stomach to go back and apply your suggestions to my mix, or not now at least, I think my dash is truly done on this song, but thanks for doing this, it's been really interesting and educational.

[triviul]

I don't understand the rationale behind recording the same guitar with different mics but no actual double tracks, maybe the Griffos can chime in here?

It's a sonic thing. By using two mics rather than one, you can get more of the sound of the amp, and by printing them to different tracks you get to completely reinvent the timbre at mixdown if necessary using nothing more than phase-cancellation. As for double-tracks, although the band didn't officially record any, I imagine it'd be pretty easy to edit together some decent 'fake' double-tracks given that there's a certain amount of repetition in the chorus lines in particular. In fact, I'm surprised how few people have given that a go, as it's probably one of the first things I'd have tried myself.

[triviul]

http://soundcloud.com/robinmarder/blood-to-bone-young-griffo

The overall tonality of this mix feels a little hilly to me in the 300Hz and 12kHz regions, while the 1-2kHz midrange frequencies seem recessed. A little more low end below 100Hz would also make sense too, I think, although you should also get busy with high-pass filtering on individual tracks at the same time, because there are some fairly useless subs coming through at the moment between the kick hits, and there's no sense in boosting those at the same time. There's a 2-6kHz emphasis to the kick and snare which may be misleading you here, because those tracks give the impression that the complete mix is over-played in that region, whereas the rest of the individual tracks don't really seem to be. It's an odd effect, that one! Toning down the brightness of both of those close-mics would help with this, and would also improve the blend of the kit, although don't go too far with rounding off the kick in the chorus, because that does need a certain amount of energy above 500Hz if it's going to cut through the mix on small speakers. I wonder whether you're using some kind of distortion on the snare too. Although I'm not at all against this in principle, there is an abrasive quality to the snare sound currently which isn't that pleasant, and if a distortion is what's causing that then I'd look at trying to EQ the distortion separately to smooth it out a bit.

Beyond those drum issues, I suspect that you might have cut a little too much midrange out of the overheads, because the cymbals feel rather thin and hissy. Bringing those frequencies back into the mix will also help with the blend of the snare and toms, neither of which glue particularly successfully into the kit as a whole as it stands. That said, I wonder with this mix whether you're doing a little too much boosting, and not enough cutting, because there's a certain brittleness to the drums in particular which I often associate with too much boosting (especially with CPU-light digital EQ plug-ins). When I mix, usually about 80% of the EQ bands I use are cuts, and if you get into the habit of working that way you're less likely to fall foul of the loudness bias when balancing.

The bass and guitar tones and balances are pretty solid for the most part, although I'd be tempted to give the bass a little more lows, because it feels too lightweight against the kick. The mid-section bass also becomes too emphatic in the higher frequencies, which adds a certain grittiness there despite the fairly well-judged guitar tones -- especially in mono where the panned guitars inevitably take a step back in the balance. The main guitar riff in the chorus feels a bit underwhelming too, both in terms of level and midrange presence. It's a hooky in its own right, so it's a shame not to hear it clearly.

Vocals are crispy in the 10-12kHz region, and although you've managed to control the sibilance fairly firmly, I still feel that a bit more midrange in conjunction with a small fader hike would help them feel a bit more solid in the mix. They do blend quite nicely, though, despite the usual tuning/timing concerns. Overall effects use seems fairly successful, although there's a hint of overall muddiness in there that might be attributable to low-end reverb tail (rather than just unwanted low end components on individual dry tracks). The cymbals' mono-compatibility seems to be better than on some mixes, but the guitars do still become rather woolly-sounding when the left and right channels are summed, so I'd probably have another look at their multimic phase relationships.

Another interesting mix this, and already pretty accomplished as it is, certainly from an overall balance perspective. It's mainly EQ and phase-matching that you should concentrate more on to really snap it into focus, I reckon. Thanks for posting!
 

[triviul]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12572442/YoungGriffo_BloodToBone_gLOW-x.mp3

Love the opening synthy sound! Really atmospheric and unsettling, and works nicely with the general vibe of the music for me. However, I'd somehow expect it begin fading out from the first drum entry rather than waiting for the vocal -- don't know quite why, though! Maybe it's because the entry of the vocal isn't such a big arrangement change as the entry of the drums/guitar, so provides perhaps less of a transfer of interest from that perspective.

The kick and snare are both struggling to punch through the thicker textures of this mix, but for different reasons: the kick doesn't quite have the mid-range energy to punch through on small speakers, while the snare doesn't have enough lower midrange 'oomph' to sound meaty next to the guitars and vocals. In addition to this, however, I'd probably turn up the drums buss as a whole by a couple of decibels, and then ease those drum peaks back into the balance with buss compression. That way you'll get more subjective cut-through for similar peak levels, because the strong drum hits will effectively duck the rest of the backing slightly.

Overall tonality is generally well-judged, although the vocals in feel like they're focusing too much on the upper octave and not enough around 700Hz or so, and so come across as slightly hissy even though the sibilance is still just about within my comfort zone. (In fact, a similar thing could also be said about the drum overheads.) I wonder also if the bass has perhaps a bit too much going on in the 100Hz region in this mix, although it might be the warmth of the kick down there that is making it appear that way. Whatever it is, I reckon that it might have encouraged you to take too much low midrange out of the guitar parts in response, which means that they don't come across as powerfully as I'd hope they would. This is a critical balance issue in rock music of any kind, and one that many mixes here have struggled with, so be sure to give it the time it needs, and perform some mults if necessary to deal with the textural changes in the arrangement.

Speaking of mults, I suspect that mults might be particularly useful on the bass in this mix, as it doesn't really hold its place that consistently in the balance at the moment -- it seems to be ducking and diving a bit. A bit more compression will help too, I imagine, but one setting may well not work for all the song sections here, judging from what I can hear on the raw multitracks. More compression might also be sensible for the backing vocals, which always seem either too high or too low in the balance, despite a promising tone.

You've already used some send effects quite sensibly, but I figure you could make more of this aspect of the production, in terms of filling out the sound. A bit more not-too-bright and not-too-long large-room reverb would probably be of benefit, as would stereo tempo delay. Just watch out for clutter, because things are fairly clear at the moment and it would be a pity to sacrifice that aspect of the sonics. The overall stereo picture makes decent sense in stereo, but the guitars and cymbals suffer quite badly from phase-cancellation in mono.

Thanks for letting us have a listen! Despite my few criticisms, you've made lots of sensible balance decisions already, and therefore I think you may find that a few simple EQ and effects tweaks will make a big difference to the final results.

[triviul]

http://soundcloud.com/javy_a/blood-to-bone

The first thing that really strikes me with this mix is that the snare is way out front, and much louder than I'd suggest having it in the mix. The transient is the biggest culprit, but even if I hammer that back into the mix with hurricane-force limiting, leaving only the sustain elements, the instrument still feels overpowering even in the final choruses. This sense of imbalance is exacerbated by the roundness of the kick timbre you've chosen, which doesn't provide enough competition in the midrange to really make sense of the rhythm on smaller speakers. The inherent sound of the snare also feels rather out of character with the rest of the kit, with a boxy 350Hz emphasis, and if it's proving tricky to get anything more in keeping then I'd suggest exploring triggered samples as an alternative. The rest of the kit seems much more appropriate, although the wide-panning of the toms still seems a bit odd to me, and you could maybe afford to dip a couple of decibels out of the overheads at 3.5kHz to combat a touch of harshness that's creeping in during the mid-sections in particular.

The bass isn't as warm as on some of the mixes on this thread, and could therefore do with a bit more action sub-200Hz (I especially notice this in mid-section 2), but it's nonetheless very well controlled and translates splendidly onto small speakers. Guitars are also pretty well managed, especially in terms of avoiding harshness, but again I'd think of sneaking in a little more low midrange if you can do so without introducing too much muddiness.

I like what you've done with the chorus lead vocals, which are quite full and smooth-sounding with a pleasant width to them in stereo, although there's some distracting stereo flamming going on with some consonants as a result, not helped by slightly out-of-control sibilance. They're probably too high in the balance overall as well, I reckon, because they're making everything except the snare feel rather small by comparison. The backing vocals have a nice tone too, but need to be more firmly controlled dynamically if they're going to balance well from moment to moment, and they could probably lose some of their low mids, which make them feel a bit too 'big' compared to the drums and guitars in the outro especially.

Given the issues with the snare and vocals particularly overshadowing the rest of the rhythm section and guitars in the balance, it's no surprise that you've encountered difficulties getting the long-term dynamics to support the ebb and flow of the song. However, even with the balance aspects sorted out, the guitar texture you've created in the chorus is always going to have difficulty competing with the end of the second mid-section unless you either reassess the chorus's EQ or add some additional layers at that point.

As far as overall mix tonality is concerned, I'd suggest pulling out a little 350Hz, and then adding in some 800Hz and general HF 'air' -- there's a slight boxiness to the sound otherwise. Mono-compatibility could be improved too, with the cymbals and backing vocals both taking on rather a muffled sound in a single speaker, so if you were able to go back and have a look at what the inter-channel phase is doing there that would be great.

This is one of those mixes where it feels like your own musical impulses are maybe getting in the way of putting together the most successful balance, because a lot of the tones are fine, but their relative levels aren't quite meshing yet to give a really good ensemble sound. A bit more switching between different monitoring systems would probably help you a lot here, I think, as it tends to refocus your ears on the technical level-balance issues irrespective of the tone quality of each individual instrument. Hope this all makes sense, and thanks for posting!

[Robin]

http://soundcloud.com/robinmarder/blood-to-bone-young-griffo

The overall tonality of this mix feels a little hilly to me in the 300Hz and 12kHz regions, while the 1-2kHz midrange frequencies seem recessed. A little more low end below 100Hz would also make sense too, I think, although you should also get busy .......... Another interesting mix this, and already pretty accomplished as it is, certainly from an overall balance perspective. It's mainly EQ and phase-matching that you should concentrate more on to really snap it into focus, I reckon. Thanks for posting!
 

Thanks Mike for taking the time.
After reading your critique I am seriously considering in urgently consulting my otorhinolaryngologist. I must be deaf, or my ProTools rig must have a serious problem, or my Klein & Hummel O300 or my NS10 are covered in honey or my room treatment is utter crap.

Hmmm...

• phase issues (specially the multimiked guitars) - checked
• low end rumble mumble - checked (nearly every channel has a highpass filter on it)
• eq no emphasize only frequency cuts - checked

I am surprised that you did not mention that the overall guitar volume IMHO is fairly to low (I noticed that AFTER posting … bummer).
I tried to mix, the given material the band provided, to land in the 'Tool', 'Queens Of The Stonage', 'Deathcap For Cuty', 'Thrice' and 'Cog' - ballpark but I seem to have missed that target ...
cheers
Robin

There are as many tastes as human beings.

[triviul]

After reading your critique I am seriously considering in urgently consulting my otorhinolaryngologist. I must be deaf, or my ProTools rig must have a serious problem, or my Klein & Hummel O300 or my NS10 are covered in honey or my room treatment is utter crap.

Blimey -- I wouldn't go quite that far! Let's put things in perspective. You've clearly got good monitors, and the fact that you mention room treatment at all means you're probably ahead of most small-studio operators on that front... So if I'm hearing something a bit different than you are, then you're entitled to a different opinion. (Especially as you're probably coming to this project considerably fresher than I am! )

low end rumble mumble - checked (nearly every channel has a highpass filter on it)

My suspicions are with the bass guitar -- is that also high-pass filtered?

eq no emphasize only frequency cuts

If you're already favouring EQ cuts over boosts, then clearly that's not the issue here. I can only speculate on the causes of some of the things I'm hearing, unfortunately.

I am surprised that you did not mention that the overall guitar volume IMHO is fairly to low (I noticed that AFTER posting … bummer).

That's always the way, isn't it! I'd agree with you about the guitars, though. It was just that I was hearing those in relation more to the overheads and vocals, where there isn't as much of a level mismatch as between the guitars and bass/snare.

I tried to mix the given material the band provided to land in the 'Tool', 'Queens Of The Stonage', 'Deathcap For Cuty', 'Thrice' and 'Cog' - ballpark but I seem to have missed that target ...

Mix referencing is by no means an exact science -- all the tracks referenced by the band actually sound quite different from each other, so the conclusions you draw as to which aspects of each one to favour can make a big impact on the outcome. And of course, as you say, there are as many tastes as human beings, something that's amply demonstrated by the wide variety of different mix interpretations we've heard on this thread, despite the fact that everyone was working from the exact same starting point.

[triviul]

Here is my mix http://soundcloud.com/martin-olsson/blood-to-bone-martin

A very nice balance this, with a lovely natural open sound and a decent sense of both size and long-term dynamics. Up there with the best on this thread I'd say, in those terms, and possibly the slickest-sounding mix I've heard so far in terms of straight sonics. A lovely thing to listen to, and also pretty well in line with the reference sonics -- although I might add a speck at 800Hz and take out a sliver at 3.5kHz. The clarity is great, as is the blend, and there are just enough more expansive effects to enlarge the field of battle nicely without washing anything out or adding clutter.

In a situation like this where the sounds have been so carefully woven together, I find that the interaction of the different timbres makes all the tonal choices seem logical, irrespective of whether they match my own tonal preferences. So, for example, if I really concentrate , then I can come up with a number of little things that I'd tweak personally. I might want the opening bass tone to have a bit more 1kHz solidity, for example, or the kick to have slightly less click in the verses -- perhaps that's what you meant by the kick being too loud?. The snare could have a little less transient and a fraction more 'boosh' (to use the technical term ) or the toms might be blended slightly more with the entire kit. The bass might have a touch more weight and warmth below 500Hz... But, to be honest, in the grand scheme of things there's such a cohesive overall vision here that it's hard not to just get swept along by it and forget about any minor niggles. A big factor in this, I think, is automation, because it seems to me that things just ease themselves forward in the mix slightly whenever they want to be heard, directing my attention and making it very easy to take everything in without having to work too hard as a listener. This reminds me very much of Andy Wallace's mixing technique, where he uses extensive rides so that he doesn't have to rely on EQ or other processing as much.

As with Daunt's entry, though, your version sticks fairly strictly within the parameters of the supplied tracks, which means that despite a sterling 'pure mixing' job, the musical 'light and shade' isn't as dramatic as I think it might be, and the long-term dynamics don't quite deliver the spine-tingling pay-offs I'm hoping for in the final chorus and outro. The mono-compatibility could do with some additional consideration, as well, because the cymbals are really suffering in mono, and the hard-panning you've used for the guitar and backing-vocal parts leaves the backing feeling slightly skeletal and mid-less against the drums/vocals on a single speaker. You're sounding great in stereo, admittedly, but I'd be more inclined to go for slightly more of a compromise position. (Bear in mind, though, that opinions do vary quite a bit amongst engineers on mono/stereo balance issues, even if there is something of a more general concensus on the issue of left/right phase-match.)

You've left a good deal of natural dynamics in your submission, and while that's commendable, I do wonder if a bit more attitude in the buss compression might not help to add some worthwhile extra excitement here. The thing is, though, that adding this in will inevitably change things like the lead-vocal balance and intelligibility (which are good, despite the remaining tuning/timing issues), so it would make sense to mix with the compressor in place rather than leaving this until mastering.

All in all, you probably deserve some kind of medal for making the band and the recording engineer look so good! This is a really great mix, and it's been a pleasure listening to it -- thanks!

[triviul]

http://www.polydreammusic.com/Young%20Griffo_16.441.01.mp3

Interesting intro, and a good way to get to the vocals quicker. Given that you've opened the can labelled 'filter effects', though, I wonder whether you could actually reuse this idea in some way so that it seems a little less arbitrary.

The chorus kick and snare seem to balance well on my full-range system, but the smaller speakers are suggesting to me that perhaps the kick's midrange attack is a bit too high up the spectrum, because it's coming across as rather clicky, in a way that doesn't quite seem to sit with the snare's timbre. Perhaps you could try shifting that EQ boost down an octave or so and see whether you feel it might give a better match on those systems. It might also just be that the kick makes very little attempt to blend with the rest of the kit in terms of ambience. While this isn't 'wrong' in any absolute sense, because the idea of a dry kick within an ambient kit sound has an enormous number of commercial precedents, it does make the tone of the kick more critical if you want the drum to feel like it belongs in the track. (I'd also tone down the verse kick a little in the HF region too, simply because I think you could get better contrast between the song sections that way.)

The toms seem wider than they ought to be compared with the overheads, so I'd be tempted to toe those in a bit, although I reckon the tone fits in pretty well with the snare. The cymbals are quite strong in the 6kHz region, which reduces the breath-like qualities of the ride (which I rather like) and replaces them with more of a sizzly sound which I found a bit wearing by the time we got to the outro section. A bit more information in the overheads/room below about 2kHz or so would help with this if you share my preferences, and in general would also give the cymbals more weight and gravitas, which I kind of feel they need in this kind of music. (Maybe that's just me, though! )

The bass seems to do a sensible job, even though you've gone for a more understated tone that I'd have instinctively chosen, and small-speaker audibility still seems reasonable. I wonder if the balance of this line could be made a bit more consistent throughout the song by multing (if you haven't already), particularly in the mid-sections -- in mid-section 1 it feels rather lightweight, while in mid-section 2 it woofs a little too much for me, which causes problems with achieving a real impact for the final chorus entry.

As far as guitar sounds go, you've kept the 3-4kHz zone mostly in reserve for the mid-sections, and there's no denying that unleashing it there does make quite an impact. The downside of this approach, however, is that you make the job of delivering the final-chorus pay-off almost impossibly hard for yourself, simply because of the drop-off in this aggressive-sounding frequency region. In general, I've found that the people who've managed that particular section transition most successfully have tended to suggest aggression in the mid-section in a more illusory manner using the 5-6kHz region, thereby keeping 3-4kHz in reserve so that it helps bolster the chorus guitars instead. It's a kind of reverse psychology, I know, and it didn't initially occur to me either until I first heard a mix on this thread actually put it into practice!

While my personal preferences for the verse vocal tend to err on the side of dry/intimate sounds, I did rather like what you've done here in making it rather unnerving and diffuse. Another one of those things that I'd probably have never done in a month of Sundays, but which seems to me to be an equally feasible alternative to the vision I have in my own head. (Always glad to have my horizons broadened!) All I'd suggest in addition to what you've already done is maybe to give it a touch more 1kHz to bring it a little closer, simply because otherwise I think there might be a risk of the guitar stealing too much of the limelight. On a more technical note, the lip noise is also coming too much to the fore in the reintro and second verse, and could usefully be edited/automated out.

When you hit the choruses, I think you could also push the fader up a decibel or so to give the lyrics a bit more projection. However, there's clearly only so far you can go down that road before you start detracting from the perceived size of the backing, and I think it would also be sensible to look at whether you could carve away at a few of the other parts with EQ around 3-4kHz, because the vocals feel quite heavily masked in this area of the spectrum. Careful of the sibilance too, which feels out of balance to me, and perhaps consider tightening up the tuning/timing too, especially since you're using the double-track at a reasonable level. Did you decide against the BVs? It sounds like there'd still be space for them, but maybe they don't appeal as much to you as they do to me.

Your effects use appears to be well-handled for the most part. The only real criticism on that front would be that the lead vocals in the chorus feel a little bit suffocated by their effects, and a bit of predelay could go a long way there, not least because increasing the predelay often allows you to use a lower return level for the same degree of wetness. The overall mix tone seems to favour the 200-500Hz region a bit much, and could also do with a couple of decibels help around 1-2kHz. More of a concern, though, is the mono-compatibility, because your nice expansive stereo panorama is getting wrapped in a blanket in mono. It sounds like there are several phase-cancellation and balance effects operating simultaneously here, so I'm afraid it might take a bit of detective work to sort out, but I reckon it'd be worth the effort.

Overall there's a lot of food for thought in this mix (for me at least!) because you've shown the potential for several lateral tone decisions. Thanks for submitting!

[triviul]

Hurray!
I think that's the last of the critiques posted!

If there's anyone I've inadvertently left out, do please let me know, but otherwise I'll get ready to start putting together a shortlist of competition entries for the band once that deadline's past. Good luck to everyone!

If anyone asks for me before then, I'll be in a darkened room with my head in an ice-bucket. 

[MortenDK]

Hey great job Mike! thanks for doing this!. I sure got a lot out of this to take with me. For that I want to say thanks! 

[lettenmusic]

http://www.polydreammusic.com/Young%20Griffo_16.441.01.mp3

Interesting intro, and a good way to get to the vocals quicker. Given that you've opened the can labelled 'filter effects', though, I wonder whether you could actually reuse this idea in some way so that it seems a little less arbitrary.

The chorus kick and snare seem to balance well on my full-range system, but the smaller speakers are suggesting to me that perhaps the kick's midrange attack is a bit too high up the spectrum, because it's coming across as rather clicky, in a way that doesn't quite seem to sit with the snare's timbre. Perhaps you could try shifting that EQ boost down an octave or so and see whether you feel it might give a better match on those systems. It might also just be that the kick makes very little attempt to blend with the rest of the kit in terms of ambience. While this isn't 'wrong' in any absolute sense, because the idea of a dry kick within an ambient kit sound has an enormous number of commercial precedents, it does make the tone of the kick more critical if you want the drum to feel like it belongs in the track. (I'd also tone down the verse kick a little in the HF region too, simply because I think you could get better contrast between the song sections that way.)

The toms seem wider than they ought to be compared with the overheads, so I'd be tempted to toe those in a bit, although I reckon the tone fits in pretty well with the snare. The cymbals are quite strong in the 6kHz region, which reduces the breath-like qualities of the ride (which I rather like) and replaces them with more of a sizzly sound which I found a bit wearing by the time we got to the outro section. A bit more information in the overheads/room below about 2kHz or so would help with this if you share my preferences, and in general would also give the cymbals more weight and gravitas, which I kind of feel they need in this kind of music. (Maybe that's just me, though! )

The bass seems to do a sensible job, even though you've gone for a more understated tone that I'd have instinctively chosen, and small-speaker audibility still seems reasonable. I wonder if the balance of this line could be made a bit more consistent throughout the song by multing (if you haven't already), particularly in the mid-sections -- in mid-section 1 it feels rather lightweight, while in mid-section 2 it woofs a little too much for me, which causes problems with achieving a real impact for the final chorus entry.

As far as guitar sounds go, you've kept the 3-4kHz zone mostly in reserve for the mid-sections, and there's no denying that unleashing it there does make quite an impact. The downside of this approach, however, is that you make the job of delivering the final-chorus pay-off almost impossibly hard for yourself, simply because of the drop-off in this aggressive-sounding frequency region. In general, I've found that the people who've managed that particular section transition most successfully have tended to suggest aggression in the mid-section in a more illusory manner using the 5-6kHz region, thereby keeping 3-4kHz in reserve so that it helps bolster the chorus guitars instead. It's a kind of reverse psychology, I know, and it didn't initially occur to me either until I first heard a mix on this thread actually put it into practice!

While my personal preferences for the verse vocal tend to err on the side of dry/intimate sounds, I did rather like what you've done here in making it rather unnerving and diffuse. Another one of those things that I'd probably have never done in a month of Sundays, but which seems to me to be an equally feasible alternative to the vision I have in my own head. (Always glad to have my horizons broadened!) All I'd suggest in addition to what you've already done is maybe to give it a touch more 1kHz to bring it a little closer, simply because otherwise I think there might be a risk of the guitar stealing too much of the limelight. On a more technical note, the lip noise is also coming too much to the fore in the reintro and second verse, and could usefully be edited/automated out.

When you hit the choruses, I think you could also push the fader up a decibel or so to give the lyrics a bit more projection. However, there's clearly only so far you can go down that road before you start detracting from the perceived size of the backing, and I think it would also be sensible to look at whether you could carve away at a few of the other parts with EQ around 3-4kHz, because the vocals feel quite heavily masked in this area of the spectrum. Careful of the sibilance too, which feels out of balance to me, and perhaps consider tightening up the tuning/timing too, especially since you're using the double-track at a reasonable level. Did you decide against the BVs? It sounds like there'd still be space for them, but maybe they don't appeal as much to you as they do to me.

Your effects use appears to be well-handled for the most part. The only real criticism on that front would be that the lead vocals in the chorus feel a little bit suffocated by their effects, and a bit of predelay could go a long way there, not least because increasing the predelay often allows you to use a lower return level for the same degree of wetness. The overall mix tone seems to favour the 200-500Hz region a bit much, and could also do with a couple of decibels help around 1-2kHz. More of a concern, though, is the mono-compatibility, because your nice expansive stereo panorama is getting wrapped in a blanket in mono. It sounds like there are several phase-cancellation and balance effects operating simultaneously here, so I'm afraid it might take a bit of detective work to sort out, but I reckon it'd be worth the effort.

Overall there's a lot of food for thought in this mix (for me at least!) because you've shown the potential for several lateral tone decisions. Thanks for submitting!

thanks for the critique, you are pretty spot on with most things.  I didn't do much comparing to commercial releases while mixing, so that's probably why the overall frequency response of the mix as a whole is off a bit.  I knew the mono compatibility was horrible, but who listens in mono anymore?!!?  
There are numerous things I would do differently if I had a reason to spend more time on it, just been kind of using this site as a break from my other work.
I would probably try to duplicate and reuse certain guitar parts from the middle of the song and put them towards the end, as the tone in the middle solo is way better then the riffing towards the end. IMO
I didn't even use the 'effected' bass track and I thought the background vocals lacked purpose.  They felt lazy and not very thought out, plus I didn't tune any of the vocals.  Obviously one would manual tune all the vocals if going for a more commercial sounding mix, or more than likely try to re-record the lead vox. I tend to pan toms pretty hard just because I like to hear them stand out more in most rock mixes.
I would have also referenced the mix on other systems if I would have been contracted for this particular song, but I just mixed it on headphones.

Thanks again for the critique, it amazes me the amount of time you have available to give such thorough reviews on everyone's mixes.

Cheers

[Lastrite]

Hurray!
I think that's the last of the critiques posted!

If there's anyone I've inadvertently left out, do please let me know, but otherwise I'll get ready to start putting together a shortlist of competition entries for the band once that deadline's past. Good luck to everyone!

If anyone asks for me before then, I'll be in a darkened room with my head in an ice-bucket. 

Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing this. You went above and beyond the call of duty if you ask me. I'll bet you didn't expect this many entries (I know I didn't) and you managed to give everyone a very well informed critique. Truly amazing. As said before: reading your feedback on everyone's mix and trying to hear what you heard in the mixes has been one of the best learning experiences I've had in a long time.

Thanks.

[mrtuesday]

If anyone asks for me before then, I'll be in a darkened room with my head in an ice-bucket. 

Understandably so!
Perhaps we should all chip in for a weekend mountain retreat for Mike to clear his mind (and his ears!)

Above & beyond what anyone could have expected!

Cheers
Malcolm

[cosmicdolphin]

Hurray!
I think that's the last of the critiques posted!

You deserve some kind of medal !

CD

[Martin Olsson]

A very nice balance this, with a lovely natural open sound and a decent sense of both size and long-term dynamics. Up there with the best on this thread I'd say, in those terms, and possibly the slickest-sounding mix I've heard so far in terms of straight sonics. A lovely thing to listen to, and also pretty well in line with the reference sonics -- although I might add a speck at 800Hz and take out a sliver at 3.5kHz. The clarity is great, as is the blend, and there are just enough more expansive effects to enlarge the field of battle nicely without washing anything out or adding clutter.

In a situation like this where the sounds have been so carefully woven together, I find that the interaction of the different timbres makes all the tonal choices seem logical, irrespective of whether they match my own tonal preferences. So, for example, if I really concentrate , then I can come up with a number of little things that I'd tweak personally. I might want the opening bass tone to have a bit more 1kHz solidity, for example, or the kick to have slightly less click in the verses -- perhaps that's what you meant by the kick being too loud?. The snare could have a little less transient and a fraction more 'boosh' (to use the technical term ) or the toms might be blended slightly more with the entire kit. The bass might have a touch more weight and warmth below 500Hz... But, to be honest, in the grand scheme of things there's such a cohesive overall vision here that it's hard not to just get swept along by it and forget about any minor niggles. A big factor in this, I think, is automation, because it seems to me that things just ease themselves forward in the mix slightly whenever they want to be heard, directing my attention and making it very easy to take everything in without having to work too hard as a listener. This reminds me very much of Andy Wallace's mixing technique, where he uses extensive rides so that he doesn't have to rely on EQ or other processing as much.

As with Daunt's entry, though, your version sticks fairly strictly within the parameters of the supplied tracks, which means that despite a sterling 'pure mixing' job, the musical 'light and shade' isn't as dramatic as I think it might be, and the long-term dynamics don't quite deliver the spine-tingling pay-offs I'm hoping for in the final chorus and outro. The mono-compatibility could do with some additional consideration, as well, because the cymbals are really suffering in mono, and the hard-panning you've used for the guitar and backing-vocal parts leaves the backing feeling slightly skeletal and mid-less against the drums/vocals on a single speaker. You're sounding great in stereo, admittedly, but I'd be more inclined to go for slightly more of a compromise position. (Bear in mind, though, that opinions do vary quite a bit amongst engineers on mono/stereo balance issues, even if there is something of a more general concensus on the issue of left/right phase-match.)

You've left a good deal of natural dynamics in your submission, and while that's commendable, I do wonder if a bit more attitude in the buss compression might not help to add some worthwhile extra excitement here. The thing is, though, that adding this in will inevitably change things like the lead-vocal balance and intelligibility (which are good, despite the remaining tuning/timing issues), so it would make sense to mix with the compressor in place rather than leaving this until mastering.

All in all, you probably deserve some kind of medal for making the band and the recording engineer look so good! This is a really great mix, and it's been a pleasure listening to it -- thanks!

Thanks a lot for the feedback and your kind words!

There´s definitely more tweeking to be done, to get it real good. Sadly, since I don´t have melodyne/autotune, tuning issues would have taken to much time sorting out with a pitch shifter, so I had to let it go, to make it before deadline.

The bass drum and snare have a litte too much transient I agree, and the solution was simply to turn the drum bus compressor off. But I found that out after I printed and posted my mix... Using a limiter and parallell compression worked better.

Snare could be a bit warmer, but I couldn´t get it done with eq. Boosting low mids didn´t do much other than it made the bass drum spill noticable in a way that I didn´t feel worked so well. Drastic eq tweeks on one element in the drumkit, can make an other element sound really weird...

The bass is, as you noticed, has some cuts in the low mids/hi bass, more than I would like normally, but it made the chordal part a little bit clearer in the intro and verse. Should probably be a bit fatter on the other parts.  

I found out about this mix off a bit late, and wanted to post my mix within the deadline(although I don´t know which time zone you´re in, I had to guess...), so I had to let a couple of things go, so I agree that my mix might be little too static.

The mono/stereo issue, didn´t notice any abnormal changes to the cymbals in mono. Have to check what´s going on there. Decided to go with hardpanned guitars and backing vocals. Kept one guitar in the middle at one place though, so there would be at least some rock ´n roll left in mono.

Funny you mentioned Andy Wallace, I always use an old RATM record as reference when I need to dail in a punchy bass drum...

Thanks for your critique! What an awesome job you done reviewing all of these mixes. Hats off!

[Daunt]

Alright, I tried to buid some more drama between the sections the and tuned the vocals. This is the final version.

http://www.arthor.fi/demo/YoungGriffo_V2.mp3

Thanks!

[Robin]

I am surprised that you did not mention that the overall guitar volume IMHO is fairly to low (I noticed that AFTER posting … bummer).

That's always the way, isn't it! I'd agree with you about the guitars, though. It was just that I was hearing those in relation more to the overheads and vocals, where there isn't as much of a level mismatch as between the guitars and bass/snare.

Thanks a LOT Mike for clarifying. I took your advises serious and re-thought the whole mix. For my ears it now sounds too mid (400-800Hz) heavy. I am always drawn to level those frequencies down, making me think that the assumption, that my room could really be poorly treated, is maybe true. (The room's resonant frequencies are just roughly @ 682 and 837Hz at 85dB - bad, bad, baaaad.)

Mike, I assume you don't have the time but if you could find a quick spot in your busy schedule, it would help me very much, for future projects, if you could tell me, if I am heading into the right direction with my new mix now:

http://soundcloud.com/robinmarder/blood-to-bone-young-griffo-re

cheers
Robin